### Availability of Alternative Remedy Under Section 9 of Land Grabbing Act Bars Writ Jurisdiction for FIR Registration

The Petitioner filed an application with the Collector, Ahmedabad, seeking action under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, against Respondent Nos. 9 and 10, alleging unauthorized occupation of her land in Survey Nos. 847 and 848 at Mauje: Daduka

On 03/04/2023, the Collector’s office informed the Petitioner that the application was being filed (closed) because Regular Civil Suit No. 31/2013 was pending regarding the same property

The Petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that Respondents 9 and 10 were not parties to the civil suit and their actions constituted "land grabbing"

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct the registration of an offence under the Land Grabbing Act despite the availability of alternative statutory remedies.

2. Whether the pendency of a civil suit justifies the administrative refusal to initiate proceedings under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act.

The court primarily applied Section 9(1) of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, which empowers a Special Court to take cognizance of land grabbing cases either suo motu or on application by any person

It further relied on the precedent established by the Apex Court in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashvant Dhage (2016) 6 SCC 277, which limits High Court intervention when alternative remedies for registering a complaint or investigation exist

The court reasoned that Article 226 is not the appropriate avenue for the Petitioner because the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act provides a specific statutory machinery for redressal

Under Section 9(1) of the Act and the associated 2020 Rules, the Petitioner has a direct alternative remedy to approach the Special Court, which holds the power to determine ownership, title, and lawful possession

The court noted that if authorities refuse to register an offence, the Petitioner also has the option to lodge a private complaint

Following the principles in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe, the court found that the existence of these effective alternative remedies made the current writ petition maintainable

The Court did not rule on the merits of the land grabbing allegations but directed that the Petitioner ought to approach the Special Court under Section 9 of the Act or lodge a private complaint if the executive authorities refuse to act

The petition was dismissed accordingly